- From: seshadri te <teseshu@rediffmail.com>
- Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:12:28 -0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
Hi, Kindly go through the "Recommended Processing model for NOSCRIPT Element". Give your comments/feedback on this.. Thanks Regards Seshadri Recommended Processing Model for NOSCRIPT Element ================================================= This is to describe a processing model for NOSCRIPT elements in order to bring the real significance of NOSCRIPT Element. The significance of NOSCRIPT element is conceptually often assumed to provide an alternative content when a script can not be executed. The existing processing model describes the processing of NOSCRIPT element under various circumstances. However it has been realised that the real significance of NOSCRIPT element has not been achieved yet, due to some ambiguities in the current processing model with respect to logical/conceptual aspects. Some of the ambiguities have been described below: HTML 4.01 Definition: The content of a NOSCRIPT element should only be rendered by a script-aware user agent in the following case: * The user agent doesn't support a scripting language invoked by a SCRIPT element earlier in the document. Example 1: <script type="text/javascript"> .... </script> <noscript> JavaScript is not supported!!! </noscript> <script type="text/vbscript"> .... </script> <noscript> Vbscript is not supported!!! </noscript> In the above example, assume that the vbscript is supported by the user agent, and the javascript is not. The natural expectation would be like "The user agent should process the first NOSCRIPT element alone, as the javascript is not supported by the script-aware user agent." But the current processing model allows the user agent to process all the NOSCRIPT elements irrespective of the place where the NOSCRIPT elements have been specified. As a result of this, the contents Javascript is not supported!!! and Vbscript is not supported!!! are displayed, when one of the scripting language is not supported. This creates some sort of ambiguities interms of logical/conceptual aspects, also, not giving a real significance for NOSCRIPT element. The processing model would have been much better, if it allows only those NOSCRIPT elements that corresponds to the SCRIPT element whose content type is not supported. It is recommended that following guidelines can be adopted by W3C. 1. The user agent MUST process all NOSCRIPT elements, when the user agent does not support scripts or is configured not to evaluate script. 2. If the user agent supports scripts and is configured to evaluate script. * If the user agent encounters a SCRIPT element, whose content type is not supported by the user agent, then it should process all the subsequent NOSCRIPT elements till it encounters the next SCRIPT element or end of the document, whichever comes first. These suggested guidelines would certainly improve the real significance of NOSCRIPT element.
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 00:39:21 UTC